The Beat

Cheney, "A Beer or Two" and a Gun -- UPDATED

posted by John Nichols on 02/15/2006 @ 12:16pm

Vice President Dick Cheney, who was forced to leave Yale University because his penchant for late-night beer drinking exceeded his devotion to his studies, and who is one of the small number of Americans who can count two drunk driving busts on his record, was doing more than hunting quail on the day that he shot a Texas lawyer in the face.

The vice president has admitted that he was drinking on the afternoon of the incident. He claims it was only a beer, according to the transcript of an interview with Fox New Wednesday. But the whole discussion about how much drinking took place on the day of the fateful hunt has been evolving rapidly since Katherine Armstrong, the wealthy Republican lobbyist who is a member of the politically connected family that owns the ranch where Cheney blasted his hunting partner, initially claimed that no one was imbibing before the incident.

Armstrong later acknowledged to a reporter from the NBC investigative unit that alcohol may have been served at a picnic Saturday afternoon on the dude ranch where Cheney shot Harry Whittington.

According to the report, which appeared briefly Tuesday on MSNBC, Armstrong peddled the line that she did not believe that alcohol played a part in the shooting accident. But, she admitted, "There may be a beer or two in there, but remember not everyone in the party was shooting."

The MSNBC story, which appeared only briefly before the website was scrubbed for reasons not yet explained, has been kept alive by the able web investigators at TheRawStory and other progressive blogs. And so it should be, as the prospect that alcohol may have been a factor in the shooting incident takes the story in a whole new direction.

Cheney's admission that he was drinking, along with Armstrong's clumsy attempts to downplay the alcohil issue raises more questions than it answers about an incident involving a Vice President who, like George W. Bush, was a heavy drinker in his youth, but who, unlike Bush, never swore off the bottle.

As with her over-the-top efforts to blame Whittington, the victim, for getting in the way of Cheney's birdshot blast, Armstrong's line on liquor smells a little more like an attempt to cover for the Vice President than full disclosure.

This is where the hunting accident "incident" becomes a serious matter. The role played by the Secret Service in preventing questioning of Cheney on the evening of the shooting takes on new significance when drinking is at issue. If Cheney was in any way impaired at the time of the shooting, it was certainly to the Vice President's advantage to put off the official investigation until the next morning.

Cheney claims that he downed beer hours before he shot Whittington. But he now has a lot more explaining to do than what was seen during the "softball" interview on Fox News, the Administration's house network, which the White House crisis management team arranged for him to do Wednesday.

When legitimate questions arise regarding the role that the Secret Service might have played in undermining the investigation of a shooting in order to protect the vice president from embarrassment, and possible legal charges, those issues have to be addressed fully and completely. And they must be addressed in a setting where reporters are able to press the notoriously cagey Cheney to actually answer all of the questions that are asked.

Up to now, the whole "hunting-accident" controversy has been little more than a diversion from more serious matters involving Cheney--not least among these, the investigation into whether the Vice President authorized the release of classified information as part of a scheme to discredit critics of the Administration's rush to war. But if Cheney used his Secret Service unit to prevent a necessary and proper official inquiry at a time when it might have uncovered relevant information regarding his condition when he shot a man, then the Vice President has abused his office in a most serious manner.

The prospect that such an abuse occurred requires Cheney and any White House aides who were involved in "managing" the story--put Karl Rove at the top of this list--to stop stonewalling and provide a detailed explanation of their actions in the hours that followed the shooting incident. This is certainly not the only issue on which the Vice President needs to come clean, but it is no longer a joking matter--or, more precisely, it is no longer merely a joking matter.

John Nichols's book The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."

Comments (226)

  1. Who knows? Maybe Cheney and Libby were at the local pub a few years ago when the Veep blurted out, "Let's trash that smarmy Wilson's wife with everything we've got." Then again, Wilson could feel lucky. His wife's career is over, but at least neither of them ended up in the ICU.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 11:56am

  2. Think about Watergate, Zero. Nixon and his stooges break into the DNC headquarters for absolutely no good reason: the election was a lock so why bother. The press could have ignored the entire thing as irrelevant when compared to the issues of Vietnam, the oil crisis, China-US relations, etc. But this one stupid act by a president, and its subsequent coverup, was his undoing.

    Admittedly, there have been plenty of opportunities for the least enterprising of reporters to have investigated this administration for wrongdoing. But if this is what it takes to wake them up--assuming they will continue to be "on the hunt" after Whittington leaves the hospital--it might not be a terrible waste of time.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 12:00pm

  3. If Cheney had no alcohol in his body whatsoever it would have been to his advantage to show that to the authorities immediately. His very skilled advisors and lawyers know this. It is an obvious conclusion that he COULD have had alcohol in his body, but the "possibility" is a lot better than the "proof" to a defense attorney. Thanks to the time lapse we'll never know for sure. I agree, John, this demands answers now...Cheney's "I'll talk about it when I'm good and goddamned ready to talk about it" approach is a disgrace to the second most powerful office in the country.

    Posted by kim stanley at 02/15/2006 @ 12:08pm

  4. Pathetic excuse for news these days. Who cares, it was a hunting accident.

    The press must be out of ideas for a news story..hey, why not suggest to them they cartually cover an event and straight report it? for a change...as this hunting crap is no story.

    Boring..how about the 40,000 people who will be killed on the highways this year? Maybe an auto terroist story. Maybe the Nation can write something on the subject. There should be something there for caring reporters..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 12:13pm

  5. Just heard on the radio that Cheney's scheduled an exclusive appearance on the Goebbels network to finally discuss this. Whoops, I mean, Fox News. Sorry for the typo.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 12:13pm

  6. Dawn,

    Now, now...

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 12:15pm

  7. Great Idea, John!!!

    Let's have the liberal media reporters do an aggressive investigation into the head-in-the-sand, see-hear-speak-no-evil-unless-it's-liberal stance of so many on the right in this country...

    Maybe an expose on why many on the right refuse to accept any responsibility for voting these people into office, or refuse to accept the notion that their fearless leaders could possibly do ANYTHING wrong... I love it!

    John, you are brilliant!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 12:19pm

  8. hee hee hee

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 12:20pm

  9. Once again, the coverup turns the event into a festering sore for the administration. But their whole M.O. since 2001 is to cover up their actions. It's no longer the story itself but the way the administration handled it. Sure, it's not as important as NSA domestic snooping, the wholesale handover of the budget to the Pentagon at the expense of social spending but it's symptomatic of an administration that refuses to be held accountable.

    Posted by proudlib at 02/15/2006 @ 12:22pm

  10. Wasn't John Nichols lambasting "the Media" just 24 hours ago! for concentrating on a "fun, but meaningless story" like "Quail-gate" and not the "serious" problems that Cheney has, regarding Valerie Plame, etc.????!?!!

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 12:24pm

  11. Mask -

    Didn't Nichols conclude this post with, "The prospect that such an abuse occurred requires Cheney and any White House aides who were involved in "managing" the story -- put Karl Rove at the top of this list -- to stop stonewalling and provide a detailed explanation of their actions in the hours that followed the shooting incident. This is certainly not the only issue on which the vice president needs to come clean, but it is no longer a joking matter -- or, more precisely, it is no longer merely a joking matter.

    Or did you just miss that part while you were searching for something to nitpick? Oh, and let me add "????!?!!" to convey that I am incredulous and perplexed...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 12:29pm

  12. Zero:"This is pathetic. The hunting accident has gotten better coverage than the domestic spying issue.

    you're assuming that if the press weren't talking about the hunting fiasco, they would be speaking out on the domestic spying issue.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2006 @ 12:40pm

  13. .

    NICHOLS, ANOTHER INCH & HE'D BE A MIDGET

    A man can be big, without being tall. But a short fellow given to cheap shots is very small indeed.

    How small?

    His hair smell of feet.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 02/15/2006 @ 12:46pm

  14. What truly sad, sad time it is to be a progressive.

    Let's examine the current state of affairs.

    Of all of the real issues happening in the world, the Nation has 3 of 4 blogs revolving around the Cheney shooting incident.

    This illustrates the lack of real issues and platforms progressives have to stand on. They try to make an issue out of green house gases, and they have tried to vilify the SUV owners of the world, but have made NO traction with the general SUV buying market driven public with this issue.

    They have tried the humanitarian, let's treat all humans equal regardless of their sexual orientation platform, yet over 8 states have amended their state constitutions to ban gay marriage.

    They have tried to create a platform for withdrawal from the Iraq war due to it being illegal and immoral, and have fallen flat on their faces and have not gained any traction with this argument.

    So…they are left with creating blogs about the evil Cheney and his drunken shooting accident.

    Way to go liberals! You should be so proud of yourselves!

    By the way, this is exactly WHY you keep loosing elections and will always continue to struggle with having a unified NATIONAL party.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/15/2006 @ 12:47pm

  15. NACL -

    Going after someone's height is the cheapest shot I've read all day.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 12:48pm

  16. zero, maybe this is what the idiotic public needs to begin to comprehend the big picture. this is something anyone can wrap their brain around. i think it's great. lots of us know there are bigger issues. but perhaps this will awaken those in reality tv slumber land. they have to pay the consequences when they get drunk and screw up. why doesn't cheney?

    besides, i think it is a big issue that cheney got drunk, shot someone in the face and didn't have to deal with the police.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 12:55pm

  17. once again, mr. salty, your incredible wit amazes me.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 12:56pm

  18. probably not as much as it amazes you.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 12:56pm

  19. An elderly man has just been strafed with shotgun fire from the VP of the USA and JOHN MAASCH opines:

    Who cares...this hunting crap is no story...Boring.

    Tell that to the man in the hospital, JOHN, perhaps after he recovers from the heart attack that may well have been triggered by the pellet near his heart.

    I also seem to recall that, a few years ago, someone in asimilar office was subject to endless discourse, scrutiny and analysis as well as strenous efforts to remove him from duly elected office for "shooting off" another substance. You may recall hearing about it.

    Tell me: Where is the outrage?

    Or, could it be that once again and with metronome like predicatability, rightwingers are indulging in relativism, posturing stupidly and thinking solely in terms of cases rather than principles; in this case, the "principle" is untethered to any kind of justice or even the palest shade of concern for the victim of Cheney's (possibly drunken) shooting spree.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/15/2006 @ 1:01pm

  20. Todd,

    I think liberals are "losing" elections because we don't raise the terror alert to orange two weeks before every election to fool idiots like you into thinking you're actually secure with the current administration. Hey here's an idea: let's have a color-coded alert system for hunting quail! Run with that idea, Todd, that's what make your party such a strong NATIONAL party.

    Posted by kim stanley at 02/15/2006 @ 1:01pm

  21. What a truly, truly sad time to be Todd.

    Let's examine the current state of affairs.

    Of all of the real issues happening in the world, Todd spends his time and energy vilifying liberals as a whole and focusing on articles in the Nation instead of acknowledging any of the real issues surrounding the administration that he blindly supports.

    The real issues and platforms his party has failed to adequately address and made a mockery of while they are in power include the state of our democracy, the economy, education, the environment, gay rights, health, honesty, human rights, international rights, personal liberties, race and class wars, and women's rights, to name a few.

    "They try to make an issue out of green house gases"

    Green house gases aren't an issue?

    "They have tried the humanitarian, let's treat all humans equal regardless of their sexual orientation platform, yet over 8 states have amended their state constitutions to ban gay marriage."

    Over eight. What is that, nine, out of fifty?

    "They have tried to create a platform for withdrawal from the Iraq war due to it being illegal and immoral, and have fallen flat on their faces and have not gained any traction with this argument."

    Not on Fox. But the 14 million pages that come back on a simple search of "Illegal Iraq War" beg to differ. I'm sure Todd would claim that those must be 14 million liberal sources...

    "So…they are left with creating blogs about the evil Cheney and his drunken shooting accident."

    Evil? That's up to the individual's definition of evil. For Todd, evil starts with "L". Drunken? Do you have proof of that, Todd? We'd sure like to see it! You'd prove our point nicely with that little gem...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 1:06pm

  22. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2006 @ 12:29am | ignore this person

    How about THIS theory, NEW.....

    Mr Nichols, like Ms vanden Heuval and Mr Corn, are jumping on this "blog bandwagon" to politicize the hunting accident?

    And Mr Nichols EARLIER post was made in the belief that it would be a "2-3 day story" and he wanted to appear "above such trivial matters" with his call for the Media to stop covering it and start covering Cheney's "real problems".

    But....when the bloggos went nutty over this, and his friends decided to stick with it too....Mr Nichols had a sudden change of heart and decided it WAS worth writing numerous articles about, and hopefully digging up something indictable on Cheney....like a failure to get a $7 hunting license or something!

    Any chance of THAT possibility?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 1:11pm

  23. Dawn,

    "why many on the right refuse to accept any responsibility for voting these people into office, or refuse to accept the notion that their fearless leaders could possibly do ANYTHING wrong... I love it! "

    I take full resposibility for voting him Bush, et al, into ofice.I accept rersposibility for saving the country from Gore..can you explain what the hell he was doing in sasudi Arabia yesterday besides collecting a check?

    I also take resposibility for bitching them out and being pissed when they screw up.

    I don't accept your statement that I refuse to accept they(my leaders)are fearless or do ANYTHING wrong...it is just that you accept they do EVERYTHING wrong..which is also false.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 1:13pm

  24. OKSPORTSGUY looks over his scorecard and concludes:

    Way to go liberals! You should be so proud of yourselves!

    It's painful to have to break the news to TODD, who apaprently has not been paying attention to the direction of world history but ... in the long sweep of human endeavor, LIBERALISM has always won in the long term and it will always win out in the end. Since the French and US revolutions, the expansion of rights and recognition is the pattern of human history. Concepts and practices that were once almost literally unthinkable --- universal education, suffrage, suffrage for women, primacy of secular pluralism, human rights, gay rights, ad infinitum --- are now commonplaces and the space for them is only expanding.

    Do exceptions exist? Have there been hiccups and even convulsions when retrograde rightists have tried to go against nature? For sure: Eurofascism in the 1930s and 1940s is an obvious example, that in turn was slapped down HARD and permanently when confronted by the forces of liberal republicanism. And, yes, the Middle East has also largely failed to get traction with liberalism as well --- which is why it is the most backward, quasi-mideivel zone in the world with rampant illiteracy and women wearing bags over their head in the fundementalist areas, while countries like Turkey modernize and liberalize to the great benefit of their citizens.

    I'll play Joe Namath and guarantee it: LIBERALISM wins in the end, it's an immutable law of history, locally and globally. TODD opts to gaze knowingly on a tree --- a referendum here and there --- and claim that he has seen the whole forest and in doing so reveals that he is going against the grain of how things work, the reality of the human situation, the wya things are and the way they will be. To belives otherwise is to swim against the tidal wave and delude one's self that you are "winning" some (door prize perhaps) when you are being swept away ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/15/2006 @ 1:16pm

  25. Rio Bravo -

    Regarding the roundup and treatment of Arabs after 9/11.

    You are misinformed at least, and a liar at worst (which comes as little surprise to those who read your posts).

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0627-03.htm

    http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19000

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2003/0603immigrants.htm

    Two minutes to find and paste these articles... There are dozens more...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 1:17pm

  26. Y'all who think that "the media should get serious and cover the real stories" are clueless about how this will shake out. Joe sixpack is never gonna bite on domestic spying, corruption and lobbyists, or any of the things we care about until they understand that the higher-ups in the Bush administation are fully capable of seriously fucking up and then lying about it. And this story is going to give them that indelible stain. And as Todd and friends love to point out, our agenda is dead in the water without red state Joe being on board.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/15/2006 @ 1:18pm

  27. mask, you like to point out a discrepancy in mr. nicholl's two blogs. did you notice the wording in this article that said, the alcohol involvement and cover-up "takes the story in a whole new direction" or the "hunting accident incident becomes a serious matter" or the secret service preventing questioning of cheney by law enforcement officials "takes on new significance."

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 1:22pm

  28. Mask – "But....when the bloggos went nutty over this, and his friends decided to stick with it too....Mr Nichols had a sudden change of heart and decided it WAS worth writing numerous articles about, and hopefully digging up something indictable on Cheney....like a failure to get a $7 hunting license or something!

    Any chance of THAT possibility?"

    Absolutely. But who thinks the hunting stamp is an indictable issue? Maybe I missed something.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 1:23pm

  29. .

    NEW DAWN 02/15 @ 12:48am

    NACL - Going after someone's height is the cheapest shot I've read all day.

    Talk is cheap, and so are you.

    Talk less and read Nichols' column. Then you will see what a cheap shot is.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 02/15/2006 @ 1:26pm

  30. Glen,

    I am saying this is getting more coverage than anything today and it is not becasue of the story itself, that was over yesterday. Hunting accidents happen more than you think, but the media thinks THEY are the story for not being informed immediatlty.

    Where is my out rage? Has the media said anything caring about the victum here besides the "What if he dies?!!!there is a real story!"

    Another out rage...how about this gem from you.."Cheney's (possibly drunken) shooting spree." Possibly drunken...?

    Spare me your "indignation".

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 1:28pm

  31. John Maasch -

    I posted, "why many on the right refuse to accept any responsibility for voting these people into office, or refuse to accept the notion that their fearless leaders could possibly do ANYTHING wrong... I love it!"

    I take full resposibility for voting him Bush, et al, into ofice.I accept rersposibility for saving the country from Gore..can you explain what the hell he was doing in sasudi Arabia yesterday besides collecting a check?"

    Being an ex-official who isn't in power anymore, and who therefore may spout horseshit as much as he likes, wherever he likes, whenever he likes? I place as much stock in what he has to say as you probably do in Michael Moore. This is another non-point that dodges the issue of the failures of the administration and its secrecy. Bring up Clinton, bring up Gore, bring up anything but the question of Bush administration wrongdoing.

    "I also take resposibility for bitching them out and being pissed when they screw up."

    You have indeed done so on occasion.

    "I don't accept your statement that I refuse to accept they(my leaders)are fearless or do ANYTHING wrong...it is just that you accept they do EVERYTHING wrong..which is also false."

    John, I wrote "many" on the right. I did not write "John Maasch refuses..." And you also have no basis for saying "you accept they do EVERYTHING wrong..which is also false." I have never said that everything they do is wrong.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 1:30pm

  32. NACL -

    I already read it. Thanks.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 1:31pm

  33. Kim,

    "that's what make your party such a strong NATIONAL party."

    No, it is people like you, Glenn, Will, LOC, Katrina, Nichols, the moral giant of the senate Kennedy, Biden, Dean, Gore, Kerry,Hillary of I can't find the files fame, Bill, Para, Zero, ....who make us the ruling party..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 1:32pm

  34. Dawn,

    OK..

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 1:34pm

  35. Maybe Cheney should invite ALGORE on a hunting trip, and tell him there is a bag full of votes uncounted in the bushes in front and maybe some cash in a shooping bag, that he should go get it a.....

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 1:39pm

  36. Nearing the point of self-immolation, JOHN MAASCH proclaims,

    No, it is people like you, Glenn, Will, LOC, Katrina, Nichols, the moral giant of the senate Kennedy, Biden, Dean, Gore, Kerry,Hillary of I can't find the files fame, Bill, Para, Zero, ....who make us the ruling party..

    It would require a legion of investigators to detail all of JOHN's moments of violently catapulting his foot into his mouth, but I will just point to his response to one of my earlier posts: Namely, when he posited that Barack Obama had an insurmountable advantage in the '04 Illinois Senate race for the fact of being African-American ... when (cough, ahem, teeter) the conservaClown he was running against, former ambassador and GOP presidential primary candidate Alan Keyes, is African-American as well by all known accounts.

    JOHN, that's the kind of acumen, the kind of acuity and 20-15 insight, the type of keen and unyeidling grip on the facts couched in rousing rhetoric that does yeoman work for your party and its prospects. Keep up the good work and we may see another 40 year run of the US House in the hands of the center-left party.

    You may also help the cause by re-wiring the nation's TV sets to pipe in every word and deed of other thought leaders in the GOP community who are models of sagacity: say, Pat Robertson and the apologist for pedophile preists, Senator Rick Santorum. Please --- Pleeeassssseee ---- give these titans the exposure they merit, let everyone hear the message and know with whom they are dealing, and not just the flock ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/15/2006 @ 1:54pm

  37. Glenn,

    Wrong again.."'04 Illinois Senate race for the fact of being African-American ... when (cough, ahem, teeter) the conservaClown he was running against, former ambassador and GOP presidential primary candidate Alan Keyes, is African-American as well by all known accounts."

    He won as Keyes was a carpet bagger and not qualified, and the demographics have permamently place Illinois in the blue camp, like California.. nothing more or less and race does have some play but not much, other than the Dems get 90% plus of the black votes before the dems even show up and lie to them..

    I also expect the long run in the US heading to the left, as in the slow but steady march to socialism and the eventual death of captialism. Yes, you will indeed win out in the "long march" as it is, but mankind will lose. The people who are entrepneurs will be driven off as non caring for the masses for not sharing 100% of their efforts...anyway,...

    to slow this march to the sea down, you can..

    "Please --- Pleeeassssseee ---- give these titans the exposure they merit, let everyone hear the message and know with whom they are dealing, and not just the flock"

    ... as in giving us more Hillarys, Gores, Kerrys , and Deans to run against in the national elections.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 2:11pm

  38. Posted by LOVELOKI 02/15/2006 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person

    Yes, LOVE...I DID notice those NEW caveats. And it still doesn't explain why Mr Nichols thought those SAME things, which were floating around Monday, were "fun" to him then...and NOW suddenly have become objects of "serious investigation"?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 2:18pm

  39. Absolutely. But who thinks the hunting stamp is an indictable issue? Maybe I missed something.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2006 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person

    NEW....sorry if my JOKE was missed.

    Although...given the recent trends....we MAY YET see a "John Conyers basement hearing" into "impeaching Cheney for illegal hunting"!

    (again....this is called a "joke")

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 2:20pm

  40. John, great entry. Cheney has some explaining to do no doubt. I guess he figures if he only answers the questions he lets Fox ask he can't get caught in a lie. You gotta figure the guys was pretty buzzed to shoot someone in the face in an open field. Its not like these guys were really hunting. I mean they were in a field owned by a private party - the birds are let out of cages and the hunters get to shoot the birds.... Its kind of like a video game - only when your drunk you actually run the risk of shooting your buddy instead of the caged birds.

    Posted by jwm1012 at 02/15/2006 @ 2:25pm

  41. John, great entry. Cheney has some explaining to do no doubt. I guess he figures if he only answers the questions he lets Fox ask he can't get caught in a lie. You gotta figure the guy was pretty buzzed to shoot someone in the face in an open field. Its not like these guys were really hunting. I mean they were in a field owned by a private party - the birds are let out of cages and the hunters get to shoot the birds.... Its kind of like a video game - only when your drunk you actually run the risk of shooting your buddy instead of the caged birds.

    Posted by jwm1012 at 02/15/2006 @ 2:25pm

  42. Just a thought... why do we have to have only one story at a time? Aren't we able to handle more than one topic at a time these days? Why can't the media focus on the NSA investigation, Libby's doings, Iraq, the Olympics AND Quail-gate?!?!? Isn't this the era of multi-tasking?!

    Posted by Rowdy at 02/15/2006 @ 2:30pm

  43. Absolutely. But who thinks the hunting stamp is an indictable issue? Maybe I missed something.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2006 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person

    NEW....sorry if my JOKE was missed.

    Although...given the recent trends....we MAY YET see a "John Conyers basement hearing" into "impeaching Cheney for illegal hunting"!

    (again....this is called a "joke")

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2006 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

    No, Mask, let me apologize to you for missing your joke. I'm usually better at recognizing comedy.

    Maybe next time you could say something funny... I promise to try and catch it...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 2:31pm

  44. Rio Bravo -

    You posted:

    "NEW DAWN:

    You must be a member of GorePac that would explain your logic being based "soley" or "only" on leftwing blogs rather than FACTS just as the head of GorePac did in his defensed against the "Conservative Voice" articles! I wish you luck with that!"

    Never heard of Gorepac and don't follow Gore on anything.

    And are you trying to imply that the majority of your sources aren't blatantly right-wing? Bwaahahaaaaaaaa

    Okay, Fox-boy. I suppose I should have pasted the dozens and dozens of other articles that refuted your original ill-informed post.

    Funny how any outlet (or even another Republican politician) gets vilified as being liberal if they don't agree with you.

    Explain Arlen Specter to me, Rio. Friend or enemy of the right? Chuck Hagel? Or how about any of these Republicans who voted against Bush or his policies:

    Elmer L. Andersen, former Republican Governor of Minnesota (1961-63); Tim Ashby, director, Office of Mexico and the Caribbean, U.S. Commerce Department under Reagan and Bush I; Jack Bogle Founder of the Vanguard Mutual Fund; David Catania, Republican (now Independent) Councilman from Washington, D.C.; Steve Chapman, conservative syndicated columnist, Chicago Tribune; Mike Cobb, former Republican Mayor of Palo Alto, California; George Comstock, Mayor of Portola Valley, California; Marlow Cook, former Republican Senator from Kentucky (1968-74); Comer Cottrell, longtime Republican, Bush ally, and old baseball partner; David Durenberger, former Senator from Minnesota (1978-95); John Eisenhower, son of former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower; John A. Galbraith, former Republican Ohio General Assemblyman; Peter Gillette, former Republican Commissioner of Trade for Minnesota (1991-95); Lee Iacocca, former Chrysler Chairman; Anne Morton Kimberly, widow of Rogers C.B. Morton, former Republican Representative from Maryland; Steve May, former Republican state legislator from Arizona; Pete McCloskey (former Republican Representative from California); Scott McConnell, executive editor, The American Conservative; Al Meiklejohn, former Republican state senator from Colorado; Ballard Morton, son of Thruston Morton, former Republican Senator from Kentucky; Clay Myers, Republican Secretary of State (1967-77) and State Treasurer (1977-84) for Oregon; Clyde Prestowitz, counselor to Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Commerce; Rick Russman, former Republican State Senator from New Hampshire; William Milliken, former Republican Governor of Michigan (1969-82); Charley Reese, conservative columnist/journalist, Orlando Sentinel; Bill Rutherford, former Treasurer of Oregon and Chair of the Oregon Investment Council; Richard Schmalensee, former Council of Economic Advisers member for President George H. W. Bush; Jon Silver, former Republican Mayor of Portola Valley, California; Gail Slocum, former Republican Mayor of Menlo Park, California; Bob Smith, retired Republican Senator from New Hampshire; Andrew Sullivan, conservative columnist, former editor of The New Republic (on Jul. 25 he announced he wouldn't vote for Bush); Russell E. Train, EPA chief under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; Jude Wanniski, former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, coined term "supply side economics"; Marshall Wittmann, former communications director to Arizona Republican Senator John McCain.

    'Splain it to me, Rio.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 2:41pm

  45. Uhuh. More conservawonk "bury the story" bullshit, and re-directing towards other indiscretions. Oh, and just out-and-out liberal bashing, when either of those fail.

    Point blank? This is fucking hilarious. It needs no analysis, or explanation, or real policy concern... the frigging VP shot a dude in the face. It's that simple. That reaches across party lines, across oceans, to say to the world, "this man is an idiot". You thought "Potatoe" was bad? This does that up ten-fold. Not only did he shoot his friend (and not just in the back, but in the face, which is discernably different from any game fowl), he did it during a canned hunt, where you KNOW when the game is being released.

    WTF? This is a non-story? Bullshit. This is the stuff that people will joke about 10 years down the line, because it's just that unbelievable.

    Posted by Megido at 02/15/2006 @ 2:43pm

  46. The report went on to note that neither Cheney, who wielded a .28-gauge Perazzi shotgun loaded with 7.5 birdshot, nor Whittington appeared to be under the influence of intoxicants or drugs. While Whittington had not taken a hunter safety course, optional for hunters of his and Cheney's age in Texas, state officials could not determine if Cheney had, the report said. While they had Texas hunting licenses, both men were admonished for failing to buy a $7 stamp allowing them to shoot upland game birds. A department spokesman said warnings are being issued in most cases because the stamp requirement only went into effect five months ago and many hunters weren't aware of it.

    The department found the main cause of the accident was a "hunter's judgment factor." No secondary factors were found to have played a role.

    Case over---make jokes but leave the conspiracy junk to the "real crazies"---Oh I forgot--The Nation blogashpere is a "real crazy" protected sight.

    RATHER HUNT WITH DICK THAN RIDE WITH TED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/15/2006 @ 2:53pm

  47. I would still rather go on a hunting trip with Cheney, than have Ted Kennedy drive me home after a party.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 02/15/2006 @ 3:02pm

  48. Al Gore's speech in Saudi Arabia was disgraceful. He should be scolded by all Americans. Any chance of reviving his political career is gone. Shame on him.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/15/2006 @ 3:03pm

  49. well, if the veep heads of hunting with scooter and jack, watch out...

    well, he did not have a hunting license, did he? just another little example of "above the law"

    "i'm the veep u schmuks! i dont need a f#####g liscence! snarrrrrll!"

    oh the conservatives blathering and blubbering about "unfairness"...boy talk about dishing it out but not sucking it up - three words....clinton witch hunt. one more word...karma.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/15/2006 @ 3:08pm

  50. Rio Bravo -

    You write, "What has all of this have to do with Al Gore's further validation of himself as nothing more than another phychologically distrubed quasi-treasonous anti-american far left extremist?"

    Actually, this conversation started because you wanted to bring up Gore when we were discussing the current vice president.

    Nice job of switching the topic again. You are an expert at it, I'll give you that.

    Never answered my questions, either... What a shocker.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 3:09pm

  51. I don't know about hunting with a drunk Cheney. It's alot easier to take keys from a drunk man than to take a loaded weapon from a drunk man. By the way, Our "hand-holding" with Saudi Arabia (home of atleast one of the 9/11 hijackers) is also disgusting, but I digress.

    Posted by k330k at 02/15/2006 @ 3:12pm

  52. My bad. I meant "disgraceful" but never mind, disgusting is a better word.

    Posted by k330k at 02/15/2006 @ 3:14pm

  53. Glen,

    "LIBERALISM wins in the end, it's an immutable law of history, locally and globally."

    right... you just keep thinking that!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/15/2006 @ 3:25pm

  54. Another profound, insightful, well-thought-out post from OKSportsguy...

    "Right, you just keeping thinking that!"

    Brilliant. What a scathing retort. How deeply cutting that must have been for Glen.

    How long did it take you to come up with that, Todd?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 3:32pm

  55. It is getting almost sad to see how low the left will descend in their desperate attempt to regain control of the US. Every incident of any kind involving Bush, Cheney, or any other Republican is instantly a crisis worthy of impeachment in their minds. In order to follow their logic, you practically have to suspend all common sense and logic.

    Here we have in VP Cheney, a man who has had 4 heart attacks, who fights high cholesterol and high blood pressure, has had stents inserted, has a pacemaker, and quit drinking and smoking many years ago. Yet the left seizes upon a rumor that Cheney was drinking and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, runs with the rumor because it satisfies their morbid hatred of Bush and Cheney.

    I notice that they also refuse to take the word of the witness to the accident because she is also a Republican (and therefore must be a liar according to the left).

    Armstrong said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.

    Whittington shot a bird and went to retrieve it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and discovered a second covey.

    Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong said.

    "The vice president didn't see him," she continued. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."

    Armstrong said Cheney is a longtime friend who comes to the ranch to hunt about once a year and is "a very safe sportsman." She said Whittington is a regular, too, but she thought it was the first time the two men hunted together.

    "This is something that happens from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself," said Armstrong.

    One reaches the conclusion that the left is unable to present a viable alternative to conservative politics and is left with ad hominum attacks, rumor, and inuendo as a substitute. This is a generalization, just in case someone on the left says they haven't made any such allegation

    Posted by love liberty at 02/15/2006 @ 3:36pm

  56. I notice that they also refuse to take the word of the witness to the accident because she is also a Republican (and therefore must be a liar according to the left).

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/15/2006 @ 3:36pm

    yep, that about sums it up Liberty

    (it's only the flame retardent in your drawers that stops the pants on fire thing)

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 3:49pm

  57. Librty writes, "It is getting almost sad to see how low the left will descend in their desperate attempt to regain control of the US. Every incident of any kind involving Bush, Cheney, or any other Republican is instantly a crisis worthy of impeachment in their minds. In order to follow their logic, you practically have to suspend all common sense and logic."

    Sadder still, Liberty, is the refusal of many on the right who are currently in power to acknowledge offenses that actually are worthy of impeachment discussions...

    And yes, you did acknowlege at the end of your post that you were making generalizations, else I'd have surely called you on "Every incident of any kind involving Bush, Cheney, or any other Republican is instantly a crisis worthy of impeachment in their [the left's] minds."

    I don't know of anyone on the left who does this with "every incident of any kind..."

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 3:53pm

  58. This is a generalization, just in case someone on the left says they haven't made any such allegation

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/15/2006 @ 3:36pm

    And your chosen generalization included all on the left. Of course there are words you can use to narrow the point will still making it and leaving those whom your point doesn't apply to and hopnorable way out. But you didn't do that.

    Schtoopidity perhaps?

    Alfalfa pellets all over the keyboard?

    or just(how did you put it)an ad hominum attack, rumor, and inuendo as a substitute.

    (Me thinks me smells hot cotton prevented from flamation by retardent)

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 3:55pm

  59. shooting someone in the face is not a generalization. it is a particular.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 3:56pm

  60. right... you just keep thinking that!

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 02/15/2006 @ 3:25pm

    The correct response would have been

    left... you just keep thinking that!

    Ok OK?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 4:01pm

  61. RATHER HUNT WITH DICK THAN RIDE WITH TED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/15/2006 @ 2:53pm

    Of course you would

    Teddy's not a scumbag

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 4:02pm

  62. I'm sorry, but shootings birds just released from a cage after previously exiting a vehicle is not a sport. Now hunting is a sport. Regarding his many ailments, why is he still alive? I tell you, the evil ones always take longer to die.

    Posted by k330k at 02/15/2006 @ 4:03pm

  63. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/15/2006 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person "Yet the left seizes upon a rumor that Cheney was drinking and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary..."

    All the evidence to the contrary? What evidence to the contrary?

    "I notice that they also refuse to take the word of the witness to the accident because she is also a Republican...

    Actually, it was Ms. Armstrong who stated that beer was served at the picnic just prior to the quil shoot. So, we should believe everything she has said EXCEPT this little tidbit?

    Posted by Lillian at 02/15/2006 @ 4:20pm

  64. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2006 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

    Read Richard Kim's newest at "The Notion" to get an idea of how "Quail-gate" is funny.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 4:20pm

  65. Here's another one, NEW....

    How long until Bill Burkitt sends Mary Mapes an "original copy" of Dick Cheney's breathalyzer test?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 4:22pm

  66. I used to think, if I ever crossed paths with Dick Cheney, I'd tell him to go fuck himself...now I'll have to tell him to go shoot himself...

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/15/2006 @ 4:25pm

  67. I used to think that Mask could at least occasionally make a decent point. Then he started ranting about how the US should have nuked Moscow at the end of WWII and he exposed himself to be the utter nutbag that he is.

    At that point I thought that John Maasch was the sole remaining right winger here capable of communicating a coherent thought. But now he's actually trying to put forth the argument that when the VP SHOOTS SOMEONE IN THE FACE it's a non-story. Jesus John, are you really so blinded by your loyalty to this administration?

    Posted by Lillian at 02/15/2006 @ 4:36pm

  68. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2006 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

    Read Richard Kim's newest at "The Notion" to get an idea of how "Quail-gate" is funny.

    Posted by MASK 02/15/2006 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person

    Didn't find the article funny,and think that's an odd sense of humor you've got, Mask. Now I'm starting to understand why I don't laugh when you post (at least not the way you intend it).

    And you post, "How long until Bill Burkitt sends Mary Mapes an "original copy" of Dick Cheney's breathalyzer test?"

    Did he take a breathalyzer test? News to me... I thought they avoided one entirely... And I'm still not getting the humor...

    Don't quit your day job, there, Mask. Comedy is not for you.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 4:40pm

  69. "I'll play Joe Namath and guarantee it: LIBERALISM wins in the end, it's an immutable law of history, locally and globally."

    Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 02/15/2006 @ 1:16pm

    What, have you been reading real history again? 'Cause I looked in my bible(the 'right' world history) and I don't see that.

    And if you say that again, I'll hit you with this newfangled rock i just discovered.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    RATHER HUNT WITH DICK THAN RIDE WITH TED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/15/2006 @ 2:53pm

    Maybe, next tome you go upstairs, you could ask your mom to embroider that on a pillow for you.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/15/2006 @ 3:02pm

    Wow. How witty. But mostly, thanks for posting such an original thought. Something relevant to what's happening today....Wow...thanks...

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Glen,

    "LIBERALISM wins in the end, it's an immutable law of history, locally and globally."

    right... you just keep thinking that!

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 02/15/2006 @ 3:25pm

    Way to go todd. Only you could refute the only universal conclusion to be reached by studying world history.

    So, thanks for the encouragement, I will go on thinking that.

    (Perhaps, you should ponder, that if it's untrue, why the big push & panic from the right, to roll back progess?)

    Don't think to hard. We'd miss you, if your head exploded. (And don't look in the bible. Amazingly enough, not all answers are contained in it.)

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 4:48pm

  70. To all, including apologist WingNuts

    If the VP had been forthcoming from square one; instead of sitting on the info, and instead of going to see the sheriff "the next day" when a picnic had occurred with alcohol present he could have put all this to rest. But, instead he made a choice not to for some reason. Either A) he and/or Whittington had a couple beers (medicals and stents aside....having a couple beers might actually be considered "good" for a heart condition as alcohol in moderation seems to have a possible positive affect on arteriosclerosis{sp?}) and attempted a cover-up, or B) the hunter-orange "blue-dress" is intentional, a ploy gone mildly awry, intended to allow Dick to step aside in a fashion that will not deter the GOP base. "Oh, poor Dick...a huntin accident? Well, who doesn't have a beer afore goin out to blast them quail." This would then allow a VP Condi Rice to step in for an 2008 POTUS bid against Hillary.

    Whattya think? (Truly I am not a conspiracy freak, but Cheney stepping down has been bouncing around for some time, it would segue nicely, yes?)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/15/2006 @ 4:56pm

  71. One reaches the conclusion that the left is unable to present a viable alternative to conservative politics and is left with ad hominum attacks, rumor, and inuendo as a substitute.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/15/2006 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person

    Liberty,

    Bush narrowly survived from being thrown out of office, primarily because he out-polled Kerry on national security (and Kerry spinelessly refused to take a strong stand against the war), and the public was willing to trust that he could protect the nation. The circumstances of his maintaining power were fragile and depended on the war, which dominated the elections. Outside of the phony and ridiculous posturing (it worked just long enough) by Rove and the other handlers to project Bush as some kind of man of destiny and courage: macho cowboy delivered by God to save America from the evil Islamists that hate us because we're free and rich, Bush had no real strength. Rove fought hard to keep the issues centered on the so-called War on Terror, because on the economy and domestic front: Kerry was the winner. The polling consistently reinforced this.

    It perplexes the hell out of me how you guys can continue to drone on woodenly about the democrats, insinuating that they lose presidential elections by landslides, and that the republican domestic agenda is embraced by most Americans, when it is not, and you have absolutely no proof of such support.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 4:56pm

  72. LofC,

    "This would then allow a VP Condi Rice to step in for an 2008 POTUS bid against Hillary.

    Whattya think? (Truly I am not a conspiracy freak, but Cheney stepping down has been bouncing around for some time, it would segue nicely, yes?)"

    very plausible...

    The GOP knows that it would be very difficult for the Left to bash Condi being that (just in case someone hasn't noticed...) she's a woman and an African-American.

    So what would the Left not like about condi? Ah... it must be her conservative biases.

    She would be a great nomination for the GOP, I personally would vote for her over shotgun tottin' Dick any day of the week.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/15/2006 @ 5:04pm

  73. Al Gore's speech in Saudi Arabia was disgraceful. He should be scolded by all Americans. Any chance of reviving his political career is gone. Shame on him.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/15/2006 @ 3:03pm |

    Len, For those of us who may have missed the FOX news talking points regarding Gore's treachery, what specifically did he say that you find so horrible and what information can you prove as inaccurate?

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 5:11pm

  74. Hey Love (fascism more than) Liberty, how is it that you are telling us Cheney stopped drinking, but Dick is saying he had a beer at lunch on Saturday?

    And Todd, really, Condi would be a great nominee for the GOP... I hope you won't be driving anywhere until the alcohol wears off: you don't want to get hit with another DUI...

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/15/2006 @ 5:16pm

  75. So what would the Left not like about condi? Ah... it must be her conservative biases.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 02/15/2006 @ 5:04pm |

    Todd, How about all that talk of mushroom clouds over NY, for starters? Not too excited about her having an oil tanker named after her, either.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 5:17pm

  76. Hold Cheney accountable for not reporting the accident immediately. It's the least we can do. Let's face it: He was drunk, otherwise he'd have called right away.

    If you or I did this, we'd be in lock-up.

    Posted by Dev at 02/15/2006 @ 5:30pm

  77. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/15/2006 @ 4:56pm |

    LOC,

    Anything is possible with these psychopaths. I do recall talk some months before the 2004 election, of the republicans considering the dropping of snarling Dick, before they managed to deflect the real details of Hallibuton's corruption into something synonymous with conspiracy stories and urban legend- via the time required to produce enough Koolade for the talk radio zombies to digest, rehearse and perfect their talking point lines.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 5:32pm

  78. "Truly I am not a conspiracy freak, but Cheney stepping down has been bouncing around for some time, it would segue nicely, yes?"

    Hey Left of Reality...If your such a hot shot of a geologist...get the fucking rocks out of your head you silly liberal nitwit

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/15/2006 @ 5:35pm

  79. It's amusing to read those inveterate Bush Bootlickers' comments here as they try to shrug off and defend the most incompetent, corrosive and corrupt administration in our nation's history.

    Dick Cheney fires off his 28-gauge shotgun in the face and chest of his 78-year-old hunting buddy, Whittington, and these Republican see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil clowns make a convoluted reference to 40,000 people who die on our highways each year. Well, gee, I guess it's O.K. for the two-time arrestee for drunk driving, Dick Cheney, to display as little intelligence or any higher standards than the bozos who drink and drive and then get caught.

    But, it all makes sense when you consider that we have recently learned that there might have been a "couple of beers" consumed on this taxpayer-paid-for "Bird hunters-gone-wild" shooting orgy.

    The draft-dodging chicken$hit Cheney probably wishes he had invited his duck hunting U.S. Supreme Court henchman, Antonin Scalia, along to give an on-the-hunting field ruling exonerating an inebriated Cheney from any blame.

    When you consider how far the Republicans and this administration have lowered the ethical bar, and especially looking at the corrupt, corrosive liars and thieves in the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, it should come as no surprise that the Cheney Doctrine, "Go f_ _k yourself," has become their odious party's guiding principle and the morality code that they live by.

    After all, that's what they've been telling the country since Day One when the all-Republican phalanx of five U.S. Supreme (Star Chamber) Court activist, partisan lackeys installed the Bush mob via their 5-4 fiat. From that point on, it's been all downhill while they cement themselves to the belief that democracy, like the international Geneva Accords and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is "quaint and obsolete."

    This disgusting, lying Bush administration is still sinking deeper and deeper into the bowels of Hell as they continue to shred the U.S. Constitution as well as the civil liberties and freedoms of all Americans while they defiantly and arrogantly claim that they are above the law and are not accountable to anyone, least of all the American people. Their answer to anyone who questions them is: "Shut up. We can't have either democracy or freedoms when G. W. Bush says we are at war."

    Posted by richard38 at 02/15/2006 @ 5:37pm

  80. "Hey Left of Reality...If your such a hot shot of a geologist...get the fucking rocks out of your head you silly liberal nitwit"

    Please accept my appology for some of my, how shall we say, less than couth conservative brothers and sisters. They mean well, they really do, they can just be rather blunt and personally assault those that they disagree with some times.

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/15/2006 @ 5:40pm

  81. ", to display as little intelligence or any higher standards than the bozos who drink and drive and then get caught."

    Unless your the Cape Cod Orca aka Ted Kennedy you just go home and sleep it off while Mary Jo's lungs fill with water

    Pure Liberal Class

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/15/2006 @ 5:40pm

  82. My comments stand perfectly well on thier own without apology...I mean every word I say

    Thank you

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/15/2006 @ 5:42pm

  83. This whole incident is actually a gift to the Impeach-Bush movement. The only thing holding many of us back was the thought that, were Bush forced to leave office, Cheney would take over, rule for just under two years, and then be eligible for re-election. But if this "hunting accident" leads to Cheney's resignation, then yee-haa! Full speed ahead!

    Posted by debbied at 02/15/2006 @ 5:43pm

  84. Liberal Wetdreams

    Posted by libzsuk at 02/15/2006 @ 5:44pm

  85. Todd

    I understand....heads like that are where I find some of my best specimens!

    Hey LibZ...spell check. You're and not your. I love you too you mindless drone.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/15/2006 @ 6:03pm

  86. · "The U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." · "Arabs had been ‘indiscriminately rounded up' and held in ‘unforgivable' conditions." · "The Bush administration was playing into al-Qaeda's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications." · "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake." · "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

    These are some of the statements of former Vice President Al Gore, before an effectively all-Arab Saudi audience during the recent Jeddah Economic Forum. They sound a lot like a MoveOn.org rally aimed at garnering voter support for yet another failed presidential bid. But since it was an all-Arab crowd, he was probably just seeking campaign funding. Wasn't it Al, who has morphed into the Grand Pooh-Bah of America's lunatic left, who has been asking why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq instead of bombing Saudi Arabia, since most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? Isn't this the guy that accused the Bush administration of letting Saudi diplomats flee war torn American shores in the hours following the 9/11 attacks? I thought so. Yet here he is, in all his glory, speaking to a room full of fellow millionaires, using this very unique opportunity to once again effectively pour gas on the fire storm of Arab dissent for the very country Gore unfortunately calls home. What a guy! The 9/11 Commission even said that we needed to tighten up visa applications and laws. Then Gore has the nerve to say in Saudi Arabia that the U.S. has been involved in the "indiscriminate rounding up of Arabs" --Where is Dick Cheney and his shotgun when you need him? The basic theme of this post was taken from another site/person---it has been edited to my liking.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/15/2006 @ 6:11pm

  87. LL posted,

    "Here we have in VP Cheney, a man who has had 4 heart attacks, who fights high cholesterol and high blood pressure, has had stents inserted, has a pacemaker, and quit drinking and smoking many years ago. Yet the left seizes upon a rumor that Cheney was drinking and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, runs with the rumor because it satisfies their morbid hatred of Bush and Cheney."

    Dare we besmirch such a noble figure in American history? We don't have to.

    Brit Hume has indicated that Cheney called last Saturday's accidental shooting "one of the worst days of my life," but that the vice president was certain that he handled it correctly by waiting nearly a day to make it public. He also revealed that Cheney disclosed having a beer with lunch that day, but stressed that it was several hours before the shooting occurred.

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con tent_id=1002033578

    Ignore the space between the n and the t is copying and pasting.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 6:13pm

  88. Debbied==I have no problem with Dennis Hastert being President. But remember the Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" not warnings from the Texas hunting and fishing commission for not purchasing a $7 bird hunting sticker.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/15/2006 @ 6:15pm

  89. As for the lunatics and their Al Gore fixation, just let them pass by as you would the stumbling, bumbling man who is wailing about the end being near. When Gore has any power in this or any country beyond presenting us with his eloquent oratorical skills...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 6:16pm

  90. Since the Cheney shooting story continues to change as the hours pass, we only have to sit back and watch as the barrel of his gun is slowly rotated 180 degrees and his itchy finger just can't resist the impulse to pull the trigger back.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 6:18pm

  91. Deb, these guys have no shame, resignation is, I'm afraid, not in the cards over this issue

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2006 @ 6:31pm

  92. Todd -

    I'm guessing you were referring to something Libz or Bush Man said in apologizing for some of your "less than couth conservative brothers and sisters"...

    No need to defend us from such hate-mongers or their hate speech. We're pretty much big boys and girls, I think...

    No way it can be done, anyway, as it's indefensible.

    Just so you know, I don't think you are anything like them, no matter how much I disagree with you or think that you often post stuff that's petty and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    You can't convert people like them any more than moderate Muslims can reach extremist ones...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 6:32pm

  93. Jeusus H Christ. Have y'all got nothing better to waste your time on then this? This is fucking NON story. Cheney will not resign over it, Buch will not be impeached and by next week eveyone will have moved on to the next thing. Don't any of you people have or job or something?

    Posted by vrwc at 02/15/2006 @ 6:34pm

  94. Just for future reference---I felt that Clinton should have resigned. I did not support his removal by the Senate. Of course having 20/20 hindsight I should reconsider my position because it would have meant that Crazy Al would have been sworn in as President and his morphology would have begun even earlier.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/15/2006 @ 6:36pm

  95. Welcome VRWC to our little slice of wasted time. Since the story continues to change, how can you be certain this is a "fucking NON story"?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 6:36pm

  96. Len,

    You just gave me a heartattack. Really??? You think Clinton should have resigned? Stunning news.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 6:37pm

  97. wow, richard, great post!

    len, i don't think al ever promoted bombing saudi arabia since we do have friends there who aren't radical wahhabi.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 6:43pm

  98. "Jeusus H Christ. Have y'all got nothing better to waste your time on then this? This is fucking NON story. Cheney will not resign over it, Buch will not be impeached and by next week eveyone will have moved on to the next thing. Don't any of you people have or job or something?"

    Posted by VRWC 02/15/2006 @ 6:34pm

    Absolutely, why talk about any of this. By next week no one will care. Go back to your jobs. It'll sort itself out. Everything is cool. Just mind your own and business as usual can continue.

    Nothing to see here.

    "Have y'all got nothing better to waste your time on" than posting to blogs you think are pointless?

    ---------------------------------------------------

    I don't know what libsux said, but if you're reading this libby, consider; When righties like todd start apologizing on your behalf, it's probably time to pack it in.

    (Besides, todd is our favorite rightie to laugh at. You are Mr. Rightie Come Lately. We get to pick on todds ideas. But, we have to hunt for an actual idea in your posts, and are stuck picking on your grammar.)

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 6:56pm

  99. This whole thing is just too funny isn't it? Did anyone see the look on Jon Stewart's face (of the Daily Show) when the story of the shooting broke?

    To quote a certain right-wing blowhard, you can't make this stuff up, lol.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 7:03pm

  100. Did you hear that the chances of a single woman over 40 getting married are now less than that of Dick Cheney shooting someone?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 7:04pm

  101. Has anyone heard the new Aerosmith song? It's called "Cheney's Got a Gun."

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 7:05pm

  102. frank, lennonist typed up his own version of the aerosmith song...it's on the real men don't hide behind mclellan thread.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 7:14pm

  103. 1) From a strictly professional high-standards non-yellow journalism point of view, this is a very insignificant story.

    2) From a comedic point of view, this is a gold mine, the motherload. (Despite the fact that a man did get shot and is in serious condition.)

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 7:23pm

  104. I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING. THIS COULD BE "OUR" CHAPPEQUIDICK.

    CONSIDER THE PARALLELS:

    Drunken politican acting irresponsibly. Someone ends up dead or severly injured as a result. Political career damaged.

    SPREAD THE WORD. THIS IS DICK CHENEY'S CHAPPEQUIDICK.

    --If we are lucky, that is.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 7:36pm

  105. Debbied==I have no problem with Dennis Hastert being President. But remember the Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" not warnings from the Texas hunting and fishing commission for not purchasing a $7 bird hunting sticker.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/15/2006 @ 6:15pm |

    Wingers, for the umpteenth time

    Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. The term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' makes it sound as though one has to be charged/convicted of a crime in order to be impeached, but such is not the case.

    The term was left deliberately vague by the Framers; one can only guess what they had in mind, but treason bribery and treason are certainly included among the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' they considered impeachable. Abuse of power I should think would be on the list; I doubt lying about a hum job qualifies.

    Failing to get a $7 hunting stamp wouldn't be on my personal list of qualifying offenses, but it's chickenscracth on the list of crap that Cheney has pulled in office. Lying continually about WMD and the 'connection' between Saddam and AQ in my estimation qualifies as a pretty serious misuse of power.

    I, however, digress. Take a second to get it through your heads, Len Mosse, et al, that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Committing a crime may get you impeached, but you still can be impeached in the absence thereof.

    Posted by skeletonman at 02/15/2006 @ 7:41pm

  106. Liberal Wetdreams

    Posted by LIBZSUK 02/15/2006 @ 5:44pm

    Forgot "maked from conservative incompatance again"

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/15/2006 @ 8:10pm

  107. I'd have said "made" but thought better of it

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/15/2006 @ 8:13pm

  108. How can we, how do we, take advantage of this incident and turn it into another CHAPPEQUIDICK?

    --If "the left" (anyone from Noam Chomsky to Joe Biden) comes on too strong with that charge, it could backfire, in that it might be portrayed as the left "taking advantage of a horrible accident" or something, or "politicizing" an unfortunate and non political event.

    --On the other hand, in order to turn it into another CHAPPEQUIDICK (which is my goal), we need to get it into the nation's consciousness that that is precisely what it is equivilent to.

    So, any suggestions as to HOW we do that? Anyone?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 8:37pm

  109. This is the lamest piece I've ever read.

    Nichols, you are a joke.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 8:39pm

  110. I'd like to take this moment to reiterate the Dick Cheney, Vice president of the United States of America shot an old man (Harry Wittington)... in the face

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 8:42pm

  111. You all make it sound like a drive by shooting.

    It was an accident people!

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 8:44pm

  112. ok, pride, cheney got wasted, by accident shot a very old man in the face and then had the ss put off the sherriff for 24 hours so he could sober up.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 8:49pm

  113. It was an accident people!

    Posted by USAPRIDE 02/15/2006 @ 8:44pm

    Let us take this moment to reaffirm that the Vice President to the United States, Dick Cheney, accidently mistook an old man, dressed in blaze orange hunting attire for a small fleeing caged raised quail tard and shot him... in the face

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 8:51pm

  114. USAPRIDE (the only right-winger left I do not have on permanent ignore),

    Was CHAPPEQUIDICK an "accident"?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 8:51pm

  115. There is a similarity with CHAPPEQUIDICK:

    A politician gets drunk and someone ends up dead (or seriously injured).

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 8:53pm

  116. Was CHAPPEQUIDICK an "accident"?

    Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/15/2006 @ 8:51pm

    It's important to note that Dick Cheney, Vice president of the United States was no where near the brifge at Chappequiddick that fatefull night in 1969. And that no one was shot... in the face

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 8:55pm

  117. Let us hope and pray that this incident damages Cheney politically as CHAPPEQUIDICK did to Kennedy.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 8:55pm

  118. FRANK THOMAS:

    I for one still don't believe Chappaquiddick was an "accident". Personally, it smells too much of circumstance. Consider that Teddy's older brothers, both of them, were assassinated when they were questioning the power of the state (and by state I mean the bureaucratic monolith of the CIA/FBI etc). It obviously would have been too circumstantial had Teddy also been assassinated, like his brothers. Hence, it was more politically expedient to assassinate his character.

    But again, this is just a possibility. What do you guys think?

    Posted by jorcheim at 02/15/2006 @ 8:58pm

  119. frank, not gonna happen. these people have spent an obscene amount of money, as zero likes to point out, to brainwash people. thus we have the good little soldiers all around us. here too. as you well know. these are the same people deeply affected by tv commercials.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 8:59pm

  120. Palov would be proud.

    So know the VP was "wasted". Says who? Your collective, wishful, empty minds?

    I say again. It was an accident.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 9:00pm

  121. jorcheim, interesting question....makes one wonder.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 9:01pm

  122. Think of all the things Cheney is in trouble for: directing Libby release classified info to discredit critics of the war, a top CIA official stating the White House "cherry-pciked" info on the war, etc. But none of it seems to really STICK.

    But now this. MAYBE this is thr golden oportunity we have been waiting for to bring down Darth Vader.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 9:05pm

  123. Frank, don't get any on your shoes - wishful thinking can result in messy endings.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 9:07pm

  124. But to get back to the question at hand: how can we maximize the political damage to Cheney?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 9:09pm

  125. USA I can hope can't I?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/15/2006 @ 9:10pm

  126. Frank, don't get any on your shoes - wishful thinking can result in messy endings.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 02/15/2006 @ 9:07pm

    Especially if your wish is to bag a few caged raised flightless quail tards and your hunting buddy, Vice President Dick Cheney shoots you... in the face

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 9:15pm

  127. Frank, hope is what dreams are made of.

    Hey, are you coming back next year to play for the Sox, or you hanging it up? You were always one of my favorite players.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 9:17pm

  128. Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/15/2006 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person

    Len,

    I'm not privy to why Gore is in Saudi Arabia, but the content does not appear to be as radical as you claim. That is unless Gore really did previously promote the bombing of Saudi Arabia-and I'm not convinced that he did by your mere accusations. It has been my observation that when many (not all) people on the right reference the "lunatic left" they are using a cheap labeling scheme to avoid any serious analysis of that particular issue. It is actually a defense mechanism employed offensively against Americans that fail to embrace the cynical view that all foreign matters must be dealt with through macho aggression and arrogant military posturing. Your shallow labels set the mind at ease without having to engage in meaningful inquiry. Questioning why our government, despite the unending lip service given to human rights, has engaged in a series of political assassinations, interventions, and generally supported any dictator that wasn't a communist over the past 50 years or so constitutes lunacy in your eyes. To dissent from the government's official postion is to be villified as anti-American; an infantile but catchy way to cheapen the discourse. Are the Iranian dissenters in Iran anti-Iranian? Are they "lunatics?" So Gore was proclaiming that we take care not to descriminate against innocent Muslims in what has become a reckless and out-of-control war on terror, big deal.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 9:18pm

  129. Always get a kick out of you Will.

    Keep 'em coming.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 9:20pm

  130. it is a big deal oustbush. obviously gore is a terrorist-lover and in bed with the terrorists. you speak very logically in your posts. your heavy reliance on logic and reason makes me think that you too are a terrorist lover. bin laden, in his last message used logic--mentioned "fallacious" things bush has said. so, since bin laden uses logic and reason in his messages and you use logic and reason in your posts, you must be a terrorist.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 9:23pm

  131. Always get a kick out of you Will.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 02/15/2006 @ 9:20pm

    As if I were a 28 gage shotgun being fired by Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States to shoot an old man... in the face

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 9:24pm

  132. will, how could you pick on our kind, sweet vp like that? telling everyone he shot an elderly man in the face? telling everyone that dick cheney, the vice president of the united states shot an old man in the face. that's mean will.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 9:28pm

  133. frank, not gonna happen. these people have spent an obscene amount of money, as zero likes to point out, to brainwash people. thus we have the good little soldiers all around us. here too. as you well know. these are the same people deeply affected by tv commercials.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 02/15/2006 @ 8:59pm | ignore this person

    And this post rings the bell of truth. Along with the conservative war against logic, as you just mentioned.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 9:30pm

  134. Posted by LOVELOKI 02/15/2006 @ 9:28pm

    Just think of all the pressing problems we have in our country and here we are discussing how Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, mistook an old man in his hunting party for a domesticated cage raised quail and shot him...

    in the face

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 9:32pm

  135. Isn't is about time for Bush Man to crawl out on the screen and start flinging his feces?

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 9:33pm

  136. if I wasn't laughing so hard that I can barely see the keyboard or the computer screen, I would be ashamed of myself.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 9:34pm

  137. yes, oustbush, unfortunately you're probably right.

    and will, it looks like the hunting party was the two of them and a woman. real hard to keep track of that many people in an open field. and i don't think the woman had gotten out of the car yet.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 9:36pm

  138. Hunting from the car? That is awesome! One of my pals from Italy was always commenting on the fat-ass American hunters who ride around on their ATVs, referring to them as motorized wheel chairs for lazy pigs, supposedly enjoying the great outdoors...but driving around in the cadillac, jumping up out to blast away...that is unbelievable.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 9:43pm

  139. They were hunting from the car? Well that's were the cooler was.

    Did you hear that they were using WMD to shoot the game?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 9:48pm

  140. what's more pathetic than hunting from a car? "hunting" farm raised quail that are released right after you step out of your car.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 9:48pm

  141. wmds? i guess that depends on who's face we're talking about.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 9:49pm

  142. Can you not step outside yourself and see how silly you are?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 9:52pm

  143. They were hunting from the car? Well that's were the cooler was.

    Did you hear that they were using WMD to shoot the game?

    Posted by USAPRIDE 02/15/2006 @ 9:48pm |

    Who do you think will play Cheney in the movie that documents the past years of this insanity? They need a mean and nasty version of George Castanza, I would say.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 9:53pm

  144. Yes! Perfect. Jason Alexander would be perfect. I'll never look at either of them the same again.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/15/2006 @ 9:57pm

  145. Pamela Willeford ambassador to Switzerland and -- yes -- Liechtenstein, was part of the hunting excursion with Cheney and Whittington. And according to Willeford's account, Cheney and the ambassador were side-by-side when the shooting of Whittington took place.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/was-cheney-hiding-his-lew_b_1570 5.html

    But then again Cheney couldn't of had a mistress because he and his feckless administration follow the family values mantra.

    Posted by Munich at 02/15/2006 @ 10:02pm

  146. munich,

    they do have family values as long as the family you're talking about is the wal-mart family or the exxon family.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 10:07pm

  147. Did you hear that they were using WMD to shoot the game?

    Posted by USAPRIDE 02/15/2006 @ 9:48pm

    Yes, that would be a Weapon of Mandibular Destruction. In the 28 gauge form it is the favorite weapon of sitting Vice Presidents to shoot the 78 year old men whom they mistake for witless game birds... in the face.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 10:09pm

  148. so, out of a "hunting" party of 3, 2 of them were standing right there. seems like dick could have saved himself a lot of trouble by saying, "harry, where are you?"

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 10:10pm

  149. from what i understand though, they were in an open field so....

    Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 10:11pm

  150. seems like dick could have saved himself a lot of trouble by saying, "harry, where are you?"

    Posted by LOVELOKI 02/15/2006 @ 10:10pm

    But then Dick would have missed that towel snapping, good natured conservative male bonding ritual where the Vice President of the United States gets to shot one of his hunting companions... in the face

    Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 10:14pm

  151. This is the lamest piece I've ever read. Nichols, you are a joke. So says Usapride.

    Mr. Nichols it was an excellent article.

    Usapride is merely embarrassed at these men, these so called leaders of ours. This two-bit, usurpin, bellicose cowboy and his partner, Elmer Fud. They're pathetic! And so too are those lame enough to fall for their continued mendacity. It's not the least bit funny! They're ruining this country! Go ahead, laugh, and sneer! We'll see who has the last laugh! You feckless Bush bots.

    Posted by Munich at 02/15/2006 @ 10:18pm

  152. so, out of a "hunting" party of 3, 2 of them were standing right there. seems like dick could have saved himself a lot of trouble by saying, "harry, where are you?"

    Posted by LOVELOKI 02/15/2006 @ 10:10pm | ignore this person

    Hell, talking's for women...If you can't stay out of my way, then you probably deserved it! you know, social Darwinism.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 10:19pm

  153. Hell, talking's for women...If you can't stay out of my way, then you probably deserved it! you know, social Darwinism.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/15/2006 @ 10:19pm | ignore this person

    Oh shit. I forgot- scratch that last part; we hate that guy.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2006 @ 10:24pm

  154. I know how silly I am USA Pride. But I ain't never been so silly I'll drink a couple of beers and shoot a hunting buddy in the face. Maybe he thought the guy would look better with a few holes.

    Posted by Legba at 02/15/2006 @ 10:49pm

  155. WILL -\\SHUT THE FUCK UP

    PLEASE

    MY HEAD HURTS MY BELLY HURTS I AM CRING AND GOING TO THROW UP

    LAUGHING

    OH SHIT

    OWch

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 11:32pm

  156. CRYING OWCH

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 11:32pm

  157. Let's clarify a few things:

    Cheney had more than "A" beer. He also never accompanied Whittington to the hospital. Why? Had he consumed too much? Or was it because he simply didn't care? If I accidentally shot someone in the face and chest while hunting I'm accompanying this person to the hospital. Instead, Cheney went back and ate dinner at the ranch. That's irresponsible! But hey, he's Dick Cheney and he can do whatever the hell he dam well pleases! Right?

    Also, let's be perfectly clear, this wasn't a "hunting" accident. That would have involved hunting. Whatever this was, it certainly wasn't that. This ranch raises these quail, then clips their wings and has it's employees open their cages in an attempt to make them fly so that the rich, pansy upper class can shoot at them. That's not hunting!

    Posted by Munich at 02/15/2006 @ 11:43pm

  158. Posted this on another blog but pertinent here:

    I'd really like to see how Whittington looked after being shot. Has anyone seen one? That would bring home how serious a blast it was. Do you suppose that all photos, vest, clothes, were destroyed and reason he's in intensive care is for no photos to get out? Now that's a possible story that can run with the missing email, secret declassification, unmissing un-wmd, etc.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/16/2006 @ 01:49am

  159. Of interest if it had gone the other way:

    http://politicalgraveyard.com/death/gun-accidents.html

    nite.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/16/2006 @ 01:50am

  160. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/cheney.halliburton/

    Given what we know about VP Cheney's direct financial ties to Haliburton, isn't it clear that he has committed a fraud against the United States for the purpose of illegal financial gain, in accordance with the following statute? Couldn't the same be said of any US official who knowingly made false statements to advance the cause of war, while owning shares of companies that stood to gain substantially from that war? Cheney was acting specifically on behalf of the Contractor, Haliburton, to ensure no-bid contracts were awarded, based on knowingly fraudulent information generated by his own Office Of Special Plans. It might also be construed that any official who had a relationship to the Carlyle Group was also lying on their behalf - for their own financial benefit.

    Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

    (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

    (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/47/se ctions/section_1031.html

    The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefitted as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

    That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given. That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

    Everytime the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

    Indict Dick Cheney for Fraud.

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030711-7.html

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-4.html

    The outing of Valarie Plame falls into precisely the same category, as it was specifically designed to ensure that the lead up to war continued apace...

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html

    Consummate diplomats like Wilson typically do not speak of "lies." So outraged was Wilson, though, that this bogus story had been used to "justify" an unprovoked war, that he made a point to note that the already proven dishonesty begs the question regarding "what else they are lying about."

    It was a double whammy. And, as is now well known, the White House moved swiftly-if clumsily (and apparently illegally)-to retaliate.

    It was clear from the start that Vice President Dick Cheney and Kemosabe (Amer. Indian for "Scotter") Libby, as well as Karl Rove, were taking the lead in this operation to make an object lesson of Wilson and his wife.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10202005.html

    But there is abundant evidence that senior White House officials were aware of the CIA's doubts regarding the Niger story long before the State of the Union. Nearly a year earlier, in February 2002, the CIA had dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim about uranium purchases. When the CIA debriefed him in March, his findings were emphatic: As Wilson explained in a New York Times op-ed on July 6, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." CIA Director George Tenet claimed on July 11 that Wilson was sent to Niger by junior nonproliferation experts at the CIA acting "on their own initiative" and that senior administration officials were unaware of his mission. But this is not true. Wilson was told by CIA officials that the mission had been specifically requested by the office of the vice president. Indeed, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told Time magazine that Cheney had "asked a question about the implication of the [uranium] report." And, as Wilson tells The New Republic, "When an executive agency is tasked to find something out and it gets an answer, it goes back to the person who requested it." For the White House to suggest that Cheney's office was unaware of the results of Wilson's inquiry strains credulity.

    Moreover, there is strong evidence that the CIA clearly conveyed its doubts about the Niger allegation to the White House on more than one occasion prior to the State of the Union. When Bush wanted to include the claim in an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Tenet personally intervened, imploring Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council (NSC) deputy, Stephen Hadley, to cut the allegation from the speech, which he did. The idea that no one involved with the State of the Union was aware of this earlier, emphatic intervention is implausible. And when the latter speech was being written, the CIA again raised questions about the Niger assertion. According to The New York Times, when NSC proliferation staffer Robert G. Joseph called his CIA counterpart, Alan Foley, to ask about including the allegation in the State of the Union, Foley told Joseph the CIA was not confident about the information.

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030728&s=editorial072803

    Indict Vice President Cheney. Put him under oath.

    Posted by plunger at 02/16/2006 @ 05:24am

  161. Was the Ambassador to Switzerland meeting with Cheney on official business? Did she carry with her an official Diplopatic Pouch to deliver anything to the Vice President, from his private bank account in Switzerland?

    As the only actual witness to the shooting, wouldn't it be wise to have the sheriff interview her?

    Posted by plunger at 02/16/2006 @ 05:27am

  162. Cheney shoots his buddy, and the Secret Service runs interference to prevent the sheriff from getting close to Cheney.

    And what does Cheney do during this time?

    Makes himself a few mixed drinks at dinner time.

    THINK.

    If you had consumed beer prior to shooting someone and were fearful about the potential results of a blood-alchohol test, which he could potentially have been forced to take at any point that evening, would you have elected to INCREASE your blood alchohol level?

    Actually, if you were Dick Cheney, you would. In fact, you'd drink plenty of cocktails in front of witnesses who could confirm the fact that you began to drink heavily after the incident, thereby making any subsequent blood-alchohol test meaningless.

    And that is how it went.

    Posted by plunger at 02/16/2006 @ 05:37am

  163. Strange, but the ultra catholic right has said nothing concerning a drinking, shooting and wounding case involving the Vice-Prez. If it was a Lib he would be impeached for blowing someones face up.

    Posted by areyouok at 02/16/2006 @ 07:15am

  164. I think there's some instructive analogy or allegory here, but that's it.

    We all need to use this incident to update our arrogant lying chickenhawk bullshit filters,

    and move on.

    Posted by drhammer at 02/16/2006 @ 07:25am

  165. After being confronted by TODD/OKSPORTSGUY --- the one person of the right here with the class and good sense to diss him --- LIBZSUK belched out the following embarassingly incoherant gibberish. I reproduce it below in its entirity:

    Liberal Wetdreams Posted by LIBZSUK 02/15/2006 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person

    That's it. Want to see it again in case you missed any nuances, any poetic flights and sublime insights? Here 'tis, one more time:

    Liberal Wetdreams Posted by LIBZSUK 02/15/2006 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person

    Clearly, a premature ejaculation on LIBZSUK's part, as he is reduced to spams of belches of grunts couched in heavy breathing. But there is a deeper message here. Look at LIBZSUK's primitive and the failed attempt to express something (anything) and see it for what it is: The essence of conservatism. Nothing to say, no ideas, no principles, no means to say the nothing that he does not have to say, sheer brown-shirted belligerence for reasons that he does not have even the capacity to understand, complete and absolutely mindless subservience to rightwing authority. A failure to communicate anything more than premature ejaculation, white noise, a failure grounded in what LIBZSUK is: A conservaClown, a failure.

    Again, props to TODD for taking a stand.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/16/2006 @ 07:35am

  166. Shooting at fat, farm-raised, flightless birds is not hunting. It's terrorizing chickens. Our Vice Prez mistook a 78 year old man for what was, essentially, a chicken.

    Posted by nothingruler at 02/16/2006 @ 07:49am

  167. Cheney exhibited all of the behaviors and actions that would be consistent with an individual who had consumed too much alchohol prior to shooting his friend.

    Got impaired judgement?

    Armstrong claimed both that she had witnessed the incident first hand, AND that when she saw the Secret Service running in the direction of the hunting party, her assumption was that they were responding to a Cheney Heart Attack.

    These two statements cannot both be true.

    Got Coverup?

    Posted by plunger at 02/16/2006 @ 07:52am

  168. After US VP Richard Cheney shot a man in the face with a shotgun during an outing that reportedly included alcohal, some rightwingers here have started mouthing this apologetic meme:

    I would still rather go on a hunting trip with Cheney, than have Ted Kennedy drive me home after a party. Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/15/2006 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person

    Let's bring some more elements on board and see if we start to see any white knuckles.

    Would our rightwingers be eager to go hunting if Laura "Death on Wheels" Welch Bush had commandeered a vehicle in the vicinity? If Sonny Bono had crashed the local slopes to ski, to boot? And if Senator John East was moping around with a gun to round out the menagerie? Would you feel so safe in the midst of these rightwing types with their cars, skis, and guns, in addition to Cheney with a bit of booze on his breath?

    One perhaps could even place bets on whether you would emerge unscathed from the encounter with Cheney, Welch Bush, Bono, and East. Contact William Bennett, if you want to make a wager on survival chances.

    Or, if the whole situation with all these manaic conservatives on the loose makes you edgy, you can contact Rush Limbaugh. He, in turn, can email his maid to order some blue ones, some green ones, or the (really groovy) purple ones in order to calm your nerves.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/16/2006 @ 08:07am

  169. ConservaClown Relativism Delux:

    Cheney shoots and almost kills a man ---> Chill Out!!! Vincent Foster suicide ---> Clinton is an Assassin!!!

    Another reason to be disgusted with the right wing apologetics over Vice President Richard Cheney shooting a man in the face with a shotgun after a couple of beers: The shamless and repellant rightwing hysteria over the Vincent Foster tragedy and the efforts to score cheap political points over a dead man.

    And, pleeeeeaaassse , none of this transparent and stinky puppyshit about , oooo (whine - whimper) we did not really believe any of the Vincent Foster hype: One of your own RepubliClown congressmen was simulating "assassination scenarios" in his backyard with a goddamn watermelon.

    Anfd conservaClowns wonder why they are national and international laughingstocks?

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/16/2006 @ 08:17am

  170. You know after I heard Cheney's interview on Fox last night, he is the laughing stock of the administration.

    Geez...

    Can we just fire him and put Condi Rice in his place or something?

    I like the guys values and the fact that he is tight with Halliburton where a significant amount of my personal portfolio rests and all that stuff, but man the guy is just an idiot.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/16/2006 @ 08:38am

  171. OKSPORTSGUY 02/16/2006 @ 08:38am

    I truly thought I'd never see the day. I guess, leave it to a "sports guy" to notice how messed up this thing is. Hunting is a sport, after all.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/16/2006 @ 08:56am

  172. Yo' TODD,

    You're OK. You have an independent streak.

    Also: Nice to see the Hornets doing so much better than expectations in their transplanted home, in your "backyard".

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 02/16/2006 @ 08:59am

  173. On a lighter note, to download your copy of the new hit single "Cheney's Got a Gun" in MP3, WMA, or WAV formats, got to BLAM [tinyurl.com] (Actually sounds quite a bit like Aerosmith...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/16/2006 @ 10:48am

  174. Glenn,

    "Also: Nice to see the Hornets doing so much better than expectations in their transplanted home, in your "backyard"."

    This is God's country bro...the promised land...

    everything is better in OK = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/16/2006 @ 10:55am

  175. Todd

    I camped out one night in OK while hitchhiking cross-country (back in the day, when it wasn't suicidal.) Might I presume then that God is unnaturally fond of rattlesnakes?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/16/2006 @ 11:07am

  176. LofC,

    "Might I presume then that God is unnaturally fond of rattlesnakes?"

    Hey now!

    Rattlesnakes (like 'em or not) are one of God's creatures too = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/16/2006 @ 11:18am

  177. I know this is the height of egotism, however let me quote myself:

    "Rattlesnakes (like 'em or not) are one of God's creatures too = )"

    I meant to add.... as are those evil Republicans like Dick Cheney = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/16/2006 @ 11:40am

  178. Either the leftists are bored to death or their mental faculties are going through some serious degeneration given the incessant ramblings about this story.

    Many now post even sillier conspiracy rantings than Rese or Plunger.

    Is there any hope remaining for intelligent life among the so-called intelligentsia of the far left?

    The French Foreign Minister (I suppose Bush paid off the French now) is joining the chorus of those charging Iran with seeking a nuclear weapon. But that takes a back seat on the Nation website to this silly dialogue about Cheney.

    VIENNA, Austria - France accused Iran on Thursday of seeking nuclear weapons in Europe's bluntest criticism to date of Tehran's uranium enrichment plans, while Russia urged its erstwhile ally to re-impose an indefinite freeze on enrichment.

    While the United States routinely accused Iran of trying to make such arms, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy's bold statement appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance than European negotiators had previously maintained in their efforts to persuade Iran to suspend nuclear activities.

    "No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear

    And what happened to Chimichenga? Aren't any of you concerned that the Bush Administration hasn't taken him to Gitmo? (LOL)

    Posted by love liberty at 02/16/2006 @ 11:42am

  179. Fonny, fonny

    http://cheneyplaysfolsom.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 11:53am

  180. LL,

    I'm alive and well, enjoying the Iranian defiance, as your weakened country makes threats it can't possibly enforce. You dumbfucks think Iran doesn't see that of the two other members in the ridiculous "Axis of Evil", the one WITHOUT nukes was invaded? Hmmmm. Try putting yourself in their shoes, Dr. Billy Sunday. Iran has every right to have the bomb, just as Iraq will when it seeks its own down the road. Just like Argentina and Brasil, or South Korea and Japan, Indonesia or Tawain.

    LL, why don't you go spend some time in the woods with a few drunken neocon hunters yourself?

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/16/2006 @ 12:04pm

  181. I would still rather go on a hunting trip with Cheney, than have Ted Kennedy drive me home after a party.

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/15/2006 @ 3:02pm

    Ted Kennedy would rather go on a hunting trip with Cheney than drive you home after a party.

    Assuming you would ever get invited to one.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/16/2006 @ 12:09pm

  182. add to the list of nuke wannabes Liechtenstein, Andorra and Monaco

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 12:10pm

  183. Can we just fire him and put Condi Rice in his place or something?

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 02/16/2006 @ 08:38am

    Actually, no you can't do either. If Big Dick did resign or die, the Constitution provides for how he'd be replaced. The next in line for that position would be the Speaker of the House. Remember how Ford took over for Agnew?

    Just read your Constitution for details on how government is required to work. :)

    Posted by Lennonist at 02/16/2006 @ 12:11pm

  184. And LL,

    I'd rather spend time at Gitmo than at one of your christian kool-aid congregations in the Phillipines where the natives are forced to worship you like the Ewoks did C-3PO in order to eat and avoid punishment, not to mention the threat of eternal damnation in your own private version of hell.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/16/2006 @ 12:14pm

  185. Not a news story? The Vice President of the United States likes to get drunk and then go out and shoot flightless birds . . . but got so drunk that he shot one of his fellow hunters.

    That's less of a story than a President's personal, private indiscretion with an intern that didn't physically injure anyone but, to this day, is still news to the Republican Robots?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/16/2006 @ 12:14pm

  186. Lennon, you are mistaken in the case ov VICEpresidential succession.

    Vice Presidential Succession

    Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no provision for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. When a president died in office, the vice president succeeded him, and the vice presidency then remained vacant. The 25th Amendment now requires Presidents to nominate a new Vice President. The first vice president to take office under the new procedure was Gerald Ford, who was nominated by Richard Nixon on Oct. 12, 1973.

    I guess you need more than just love

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 12:27pm

  187. Lennon, :"Just read your Constitution for details on how government is required to work. :)

    this is a case of the arrogance of the ignorant

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 12:27pm

  188. It's funny that the Great Pontificating Poltroon called LL thinks that the VP shooting a fellow hunter is not worthy of such "incessant ramblings". I wonder what he calls all the attention given to Clinton's hummer in the Oval Office, which is still beaten over and over by stars of the Repub thought police such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh.

    I mean, I know Cheney has a licence to kill, but since when is it inconsequential any time a politician shoots someone at close range with a shotgun? Of course, in LL's world, it probably isn't much, in fact, I'd wager that an African American or Latino caught selling dimebags or stealing car stereos in his city are committing far greater crimes.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/16/2006 @ 12:32pm

  189. Lennonist,

    "Just read your Constitution for details on how government is required to work. :)"

    I'm sorry, you don't know me very well yet do you Lennon? If you did, you would know my statement regarding replacing Cheney with Condi was my dry sense of humor and a joke.

    I have read the constitution many times, and am fully aware of the processes in place to replace a sitting VP.

    Thank you for playing!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/16/2006 @ 12:38pm

  190. As an avid hunter and one who has taught hunting safety coarses, I find this incident appauling. If an average citizen was caught hunting without a game stamp, (a requirement in addition to the hunting license), the fine would be considerable, let alone the accidental shooting that took place. In which hunting safety coarses go into detail on the do's and don't's of shooting firearms. Goes to show again that this administration fels they are above the law by not obtaining the proper documentation.

    Posted by djmarch at 02/16/2006 @ 12:41pm

  191. there are definitely two issues here: the shooting, accidental to be sure, careless prehaps, alcoholfueled, also perhaps.

    and the reporting of the accident by the perp, delayed, for sure, cover up, maybe.

    not their finest hour, these guys are so inept politically, that it is fair to say that the veep shot himself in the foot

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 12:47pm

  192. Chimi,

    Glad you're still around to vent; besides you bring a great sense of humor to this site.

    I realize you have been out of the country for a while, but Malfeasance of Office is not the same as a hunting accident done during someone's private leisure time on nongovernment property. This incident is only an issue to the left and the media. You don't find anyone talking about it in most of the US.

    Two weeks from now, this will be some vague footnote in history. Even most of the left will have found some new "this is the one that gets Bush/Cheney" issue, and that will then dominate the news on the left and in the MSM.

    Meanwhile the rest of us will go about our daily lives and actually acomplish something.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/16/2006 @ 12:51pm

  193. LL,

    I'd rather see the Prez committing adultery (which is a common pastime in the US), than committing ill drama by advertising a photo of him looking under his desk as a hairbrained attempt to find the non-existent WMD, the search for which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people. And do people no longer talk about those WMD in your brilliant land, LL, or is this too just a meaningless footnote obliterated by the messianic mission which has turned Iraq into an abattior rife with anarchy? No, maybe it's yours and Bush's god that has the real sense of humour. Either way, you, like them, are as always, impervious to human error, contradiction and misjudgement.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/16/2006 @ 1:04pm

  194. LOVE LIBERTY 02/16/2006 @ 11:42am Either the leftists are bored to death or their mental faculties are going through some serious degeneration given the incessant ramblings about this story.

    Once again the old conservative changing the subject ploy back to another of the fiascoes created by our esteemed leaders. I still believe that this post was about dead eyed Dick and his insidious hunting practices.

    Once again we see the consequences of gw's inept invasion of Iraq, you seem to have forgotten that we are still somewhat ostracized by the UN and the rest of the world for our little oil exploration adventure curtsey of Uncle Dick and Jr.

    As far as your statement " You don't find anyone talking about it in most of the US." once again we see that you are totally clueless to reality!

    Once again your rationalizations of reality are wrapped around your personal piousness .

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/16/2006 @ 1:10pm

  195. Dycel8r,

    I'm out in the real world every day, and no one I see is talking about this, except when I find someone who points out how stupid the MSM is being about this even being some supposed issue. Maybe in your world, this is an issue, but I don't find it.

    As to the UN, perhaps you allude to that illustrious Human Rights Council (LOL) calling us names. What a joke! just peruse their calendar and you can see they are not really interested in human rights.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/16/2006 @ 1:30pm

  196. C'mon Lennon, are you going to wait 24 hours before acknowledging your mistake, like Cheney?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 1:38pm

  197. LL

    Funny that the UN and the world powers we ask help from are still avoiding us in reguards to Iraq something about a lack of trust.

    You really have to quit talking to yourself in the mirror there really is another world out there one where reality is not preconceptions.

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/16/2006 @ 1:53pm

  198. Goes to show again that this administration fels they are above the law by not obtaining the proper documentation.

    Posted by DJMARCH 02/16/2006 @ 12:41am

    To them, the laws are too much "of the people" and there is nothing that gives them a more maniacal gratification than reaffirming that they are above the people.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/16/2006 @ 5:13pm

  199. I'm out in the real world every day, and no one I see is talking about this, except when I find someone who points out how stupid the MSM is being about this even being some supposed issue. Maybe in your world, this is an issue, but I don't find it.

    LL, what you call "the real world" is up your rear end. I live in a Republican voting district and interact with Republicans all the time and the only mentions so far have been two or three jokes about draft dodgers and their unfamiliarity with guns, etc.

    On the other hand, you and your Republican brethern just can't get over Bill Clinton's personal, non-public sex life eight years after the fact.

    As to the UN, perhaps you allude to that illustrious Human Rights Council (LOL) calling us names. What a joke! just peruse their calendar and you can see they are not really interested in human rights.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/16/2006 @ 1:30pm

    You are what- pretending that the Bush administration is interested in human rights? The only interest you Republicans have in human rights is in trying to figure out a good psyop to justify completely and utterly destroying them.

    You aren't Americans. Americans are more- much more, than that. Holding up the difficulties and obstacles of fashioning a human rights agenda in world institutions as an excuse for the animalistic manner in which the Bush and other American administrations have treated human beings throughout the world is about as low as a human being can sink. But thanks for showing up so we can see what people like you look like.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/16/2006 @ 5:45pm

  200. Meanwhile the rest of us will go about our daily lives and actually acomplish something.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/16/2006 @ 12:51am

    He says as he sits in front of his computer leaving yet another post on the non-issue that he and the rest of hamsterland are not talking about.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/16/2006 @ 5:53pm

  201. As to the UN, perhaps you allude to that illustrious Human Rights Council (LOL) calling us names. What a joke! just peruse their calendar and you can see they are not really interested in human rights.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/16/2006 @ 1:30pm

    Then they would make excellent dinner guests in the Liberty household.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/16/2006 @ 5:55pm

  202. Meanwhile the rest of us will go about our daily lives and actually acomplish something.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/16/2006 @ 12:51am

    He says as he sits in front of his computer leaving yet another post on the non-issue that he and the rest of hamsterland are not talking about.

    Posted by WILL C. 02/16/2006 @ 5:53pm

    To LL and his ilk, being detested by all of humanity is an accomplishment . . . because they're hollow. Contempt is, to their twisted minds, reassurance that they have some kind of value.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/16/2006 @ 6:14pm

  203. As to the UN, perhaps you allude to that illustrious Human Rights Council (LOL) calling us names. What a joke! just peruse their calendar and you can see they are not really interested in human rights.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/16/2006 @ 1:30pm

    Then they would make excellent dinner guests in the Liberty household.

    Posted by WILL C. 02/16/2006 @ 5:55pm

    Why does that bring the name Hannibal to mind?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/16/2006 @ 6:19pm

  204. Assuming you would ever get invited to one.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/16/2006 @ 12:09am

    Yer killin' me!

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/16/2006 @ 12:14am

    Amen.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    JR,

    Maybe should mind my own....but why the hard-on for lennonist? He may be wrong, but he seems to be trying hard.

    Maybe all he needs is a simple re-edit. From: "Just read your Constitution for details on how government is required to work. :)"

    To: "Just read your Constitution for details. Required work. :)"

    Just wondering...

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/16/2006 @ 7:57pm

  205. sorry, he seemed to me a bit snide in his answer to someone else. I have been corrected numerous times, and I was always quick to admit it. that's good manners.

    but you're right, it's poor manners to gloat in a gotcha moment, and I stand corrected

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 9:44pm

  206. ...not like I've never displayed poor manners. Hell, it's my MO. (I went off on TJ over a tiny thing yesterday.)

    Was just curious.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/16/2006 @ 10:38pm

  207. Eric, as you can see, peace and love dude has yet to acknowledge his error.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2006 @ 08:33am

  208. Meanwhile the rest of us will go about our daily lives and actually acomplish something.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/16/2006 @ 12:51am

    Love Liberty, please don't tease the inmates. They are doing a heck of a job proving to the majority of America that most of them are barking mad. Perhaps if we keep real quiet, they'll even bring Cindy Sheehan back for more of her America-hating diatribes.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2006 @ 09:07am

  209. Has anyone ever noticed how pretty much every idea the left has for improving the world involves either a) making rules to regulate other people's behavior or b) making rules to expropriate other people's money?

    Just wondering.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2006 @ 10:07am

  210. I mean, come on, all of this Cheney and Bush bashing is getting a little boring, don't you think? I think one thing all Americans understand, be they Republican, Democratic, or Independent, is that the Party out of Party hates the guts of the Party in power and will do anything in their power to make life miserable for them. When you look at it this way, Mr. Nichols current article just boils down to a waste of valuable electronic ink.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2006 @ 10:19am

  211. Ponti

    "Has anyone ever noticed how pretty much every idea the left has for improving the world involves either a) making rules to regulate other people's behavior or b) making rules to expropriate other people's money?"

    And this is different from the right how? Cause I ain't seeing it.....anyone else?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/17/2006 @ 11:42am

  212. ridiculous, this is coming from folks who want to control other women's wombs and who have maxed out the nation's credit card, so the our children will be paying for Bush's follies.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2006 @ 12:07pm

  213. hey Tories? that $65 installment for the war in Iraq, that's NOT coming out of YOUR pocket?

    talk about denial and delusion

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2006 @ 1:12pm

  214. I meant BILLION, sorry

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2006 @ 1:18pm

  215. correction $72 billion requested, bringing the total for war to $400 billion

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2006 @ 2:24pm

  216. Ponti

    "Has anyone ever noticed how pretty much every idea the left has for improving the world involves either a) making rules to regulate other people's behavior or b) making rules to expropriate other people's money?"

    And this is different from the right how? Cause I ain't seeing it.....anyone else?

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/17/2006 @ 11:42am

    Thanks for asking, leftofcenter. Let's just take one itsy bitsy example - medical savings accounts. Save your own money in your own account...who's in favor of letting people manage their own money, who's in favor of making people give their money to the government 'for their own good'? Bonus question: which five Supreme Court justices voted to allow the government to take people's homes and give them to private developers, for 'the good of society'?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2006 @ 11:40pm

  217. correction $72 billion requested, bringing the total for war to $400 billion

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/17/2006 @ 2:24pm

    And your solution is which: cut defense or raise taxes? Do you know how much the total cost of another 9/11 would be? How about a nuclear strike on one of our cities by terrorists?

    Did you say you would raise taxes and cut defense? Is this an agenda that the American people would support, given the results of the last election? Just how high do you think taxes should be? Is there any limit at all, 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent? How much would you cut defense? Do you think defense is necessary at all, or should we all just hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya?' Do you wonder why Americans do not trust the left with national security? Discuss.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2006 @ 11:50pm

  218. And while we're on the subject of regulating other people's behavior, let's talk about the left's efforts to stifle free speech. In the first case, by making it a crime on campus via "speech codes", i.e., censorship, to utter politically incorrect statements, all the while supporting the rights of America-hating frauds like Ward Churchill to mutter their delinquencies. In the second case, the left is all for 'dissent' of the ilk of Cindy Sheehan, but is outraged by the other 99.99 percent of the parents of KIA's who SUPPORT the war (see below).

    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013163.php

    Posted by pontificus at 02/18/2006 @ 12:12am

  219. Cheney is a great VP - lucky for you lefties he won't run for Prez- he'd beat Shrillary like a bongo drum! Your bug-eyed screeching about a hunting accident and the relentless, despicable demonization of this good man, who is smarter than 99.9% of lefties, is neither effective nor accurate, but it is mildly amusing. The egomanical media thinks this accidental shooting is all about them, but it ain't. It's about lefties once again overplaying their hand, being negative, and having no ideas... and being pummeled at the polls - again! So keep blaming America, bashing Bush and Caterwauling about Cheney - it'll just ensure more GOP victories in Nov and in 08. The mighty rightie sez" Have a swell day! "

    Posted by Shaboomie! at 02/18/2006 @ 01:52am

  220. Is it possible this affair models the very deceit Cheney, Bush and co-conspirators have tried to practice since Day One? Even common criminals waiting for interrogation at least make an attempt to get their stories consistent. More than curious, perhaps, the Bush regime is known for reciting the same cover story, no matter whom you ask. And this traits persists, apparently with even a hunting accident-- no matter how irresponsible, even deceitful, they are with other matters, like saving New Orleans and truthful pre-invasion rationales. The truth, rather than official version, should be very, very interesting. Scott McClellan, as SpinMeister-in-Chief, has his daily work cut out for him and I look forward to his memoirs (which Cheney already has declared classified).

    Posted by alphaa10 at 02/18/2006 @ 07:26am

  221. Is it possible this affair models the very deceit Cheney, Bush and co-conspirators have tried to practice since Day One?

    Posted by ALPHAA10 02/18/2006 @ 07:26am

    Well, I have no idea exactly what deceit you are talking about, but I do know that this whole 'issue,' if one can call it that, does bear a strong similarity to the previous dozen or so 'now we've got him, heh heh heh' moments the leftists have dreamed up. And it will no doubt end in the same well-deserved manner as all the previous manufactured crises, i.e., down a rathole. Leaving the bewildered leftists, like the coyote of road runner fame, fuming and looking for the next opportunity.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/18/2006 @ 10:57am

  222. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/17/2006 @ 11:40pm

    Hail Ceaser!

    Medical savings accounts? But they really only work if your not spending every cent you have just to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, clothes on your back...

    Schtoopid idea, very conservative

    Posted by Will C. at 02/19/2006 @ 01:23am

  223. Did you say you would raise taxes and cut defense?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/17/2006 @ 11:50pm

    Hail Caeser!

    Let's see we're at use of force... I got it: raise taxes and raise defense spending. The greatest genration did it in WWII and the country come out even stronger than it went in.

    But I forget the only thing that conservatives are great at is that they're great big cry babies

    WAAAA, MY TAXES ARE TOO HIGH. WAAAAAAAA!

    Posted by Will C. at 02/19/2006 @ 01:28am

  224. And while we're on the subject of regulating other people's behavior, let's talk about the left's efforts to stifle free speech. In the first case, by making it a crime on campus via "speech codes", i.e., censorship, to utter politically incorrect statements, all the while supporting the rights of America-hating frauds like Ward Churchill to mutter their delinquencies. In the second case, the left is all for 'dissent' of the ilk of Cindy Sheehan, but is outraged by the other 99.99 percent of the parents of KIA's who SUPPORT the war (see below).

    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013163.php

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/18/2006 @ 12:12am

    Hail caeser

    Got anything to back up that speech codes thing cry baby or is it just beddy bye and you need something to help you cry yourself to sleep.

    poor baby

    Posted by Will C. at 02/19/2006 @ 01:31am

  225. Posted by WILL C. 02/19/2006 @ 01:23am

    Hail Ceaser![sic]

    Medical savings accounts? But they really only work if your not spending every cent you have just to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, clothes on your back...

    Schtoopid idea, very conservative

    Well, Will, you have again jumped into the middle of a discussion and lost track of the main logical thread while attacking a single point. I'll bring you up to speed then address your argument.

    The point we were discussing was my contention that leftist policies invariably involve giving more power to the government, and most specifically involve giving the government more power to regulate peoples' behavior and/or expropriate their money and property. For those of us who are not practicing members of the Church of the Benevolent Government, often because we know 20th Century history, this presents a problem. Thus, we seek ways to improve the country which empower people, not the government.

    Medical savings accounts are an alternative to the present system of health care in the US, whereby the only choices for most people are health plans sponsored by their employers. Surely you know, Will, that the current system is hugely inefficient to the point of being unsustainable. Most particularly, there is no competitive pressure to keep costs down. Thus, if you're not a part of the system unless you are wealthy you are effectively cut out of health care altogether. If you nationalize the whole system, you get rationing, as is practiced in England, Canada, etc.

    More generally, my contention is that there are earnest and righteous people on both sides of the left/right discussion. Leftists believe they are the 'good' side because their policies are guided by their good intentions to help people. Many of us on the right recognize this, but we also see that good intentions are not enough; policies must be effective as well. Most of the policies that the leftists advocate are intended to use the power of government to solve problems. This is a fundamentally unsound method in most cases.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/19/2006 @ 10:04am

  226. Well, Will, you have again jumped into the middle of a discussion and lost track of the main logical thread while attacking a single point. I'll bring you up to speed then address your argument.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/19/2006 @ 10:04am

    The main logic thread was about vice president Dick Cheney mistaking a 78 year old man for a caged raised quail and shooting him... in the face.

    But you are the funniest Roman I have ever met.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/19/2006 @ 2:21pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
45 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
53 Comments

» The Beat

House Rebels Force Fed Audit, Real Economy Onto Agenda | Frank's Financial Services Committee becomes focal point for revolts by members who worry about powerful banks and unemployment.
John Nichols
28 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
59 Comments